walter russell mead peter berger lilia shevtsova adam garfinkle andrew a. michta
Published on: July 26, 2013
Good Government, Bad Government


In this series of posts on the nature of effective government, I want to keep the focus narrowed to questions of implementation. Many of the comments made by the governance specialists on my “What is Governance?” paper on the Governance web site criticized my effort to restrict my focus to implementation. They argued that it is impossible to separate “good governance” from the ends or specific policies that government is seeking to achieve, and that I was taking an excessively narrow or technical view of the subject.

Well, of course. You can’t separate an evaluation of the quality of government from what the government is trying to do. If the government is running concentration camps, it’s not clear that society would be better off if it employed ruthlessly efficient guards, or ones who were lazy and bribable.

However, once you start incorporating substantive views of the ends of government into your discussion of government quality, you widen your field of view so dramatically as to lose sight of the problem of implementation. This broadened discussion opens the door not just to technical public policy analysis but to a host of normative or philosophical issues. It is precisely this tendency to slip from implementation to policy that has undermined the study of public administration in the United States.

There are a number of reasons for trying to keep the discussion focused on implementation. In the first place, there are many policies that are so-called “valence” issues where there is not much argument over their rightness. There was a well-known study by the Indian economist and activist Jean Drèze in the late 1990s that showed that in a group of poor Indian states, some fifty percent of elementary school teachers failed to show up for work on a day-to-day basis. This led to a big political outcry and provoked a host of reform efforts, but several years later follow-up studies showed that the percentage had decreased only marginally. No one in India disputes the fact that state governments should be providing basic education, or that teachers who are paid to teach should appear in their classrooms. The fact that they didn’t was purely an implementation issue. There are a host of services and public goods that governments provide, from education to public health to infrastructure to security whose ends are not terribly controversial. We may debate whether the military should intervene in a conflict, but if it does, we want it to win its wars.

A second reason for staying focused on implementation is that it allows us to do certain kinds of comparisons more effectively. For example, there is a tendency in many contemporary discussions of good governance to incorporate formal democratic accountability into the definition. Now, I am a big fan of democracy and believe that it is an intrinsic good for normative reasons. However, if democracy becomes part of the definition of good governance, there is no way of comparing the quality of state service delivery between China and India (or the US, for that matter). Nor can we investigate the empirical relationship of government quality to the presence or absence of democratic institutions.

Of course, there is no such thing as a “value-free” evaluation of government quality. Even to say that we want timely, effective, and low-cost government services rather than slow, expensive, and poorly thought-out ones reflects certain kinds of value preferences. But these preferences should be ones that are accepted as broadly as possibles. There is a constant tendency to insert more less generally accepted criteria into the analysis. Bo Rothstein in his book The Quality of Government (Chicago, 2011) points out that the World Bank Institute’s Worldwide Governance Indicators embed a preference for low levels of regulation, which would meet with much less general approval than his own criterion of impartiality.

So… policies and normative choices are as important as ever. But we have to face the fact that many governments don’t implement agreed-on policies well, and figure out why that is the case.  Then we can move on to arguing about the substance of policies.


show comments
  • Pingback: Good Government, Bad Government — Francis Fukuyama | So Superior()

  • David Tizzard

    With regard implementation, and specifically in our modern and supposedly democratic world in which all wagons are heading in the same direction, do we really need to look further than the words of Lao Tzu: “The Government that governs best, governs least.”

  • Michael G. Heller

    This guy Rothstein, is he really the competition in the field of governance? Is the evidence on impartiality watertight?

    • Bo Rothstein

      Yes, the evidence on impartiality is absolutely, one-hundred procent, fully and completely, rock hard watertight :)

      • Michael G. Heller

        Good! That means that my theory (which I distributed to every major publisher and the world’s top refereed sociology journals in 2003-2006) is correct. What a relief.

  • Anthony

    As governance consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority is excercised, thence good/bad government is function of historical organizational patterns. Further, as an indicator following line of essay, government effectiveness turns on implementation. That is, effective government (subsuming valence issue) begins with effective implementation. Now, Francis Fukuyama, is implementation public administration or something other? There has to be a procedural execution process. Additionally, from governance point of view does not implementation lay in purview of procedural and/or bureaucratic domains and rise or fall with capacity, incentive, organization, etc.? So, getting implemenation correct may reinforce idea good government.

  • Pingback: Church should consider pulling money out of Google, government adviser says – Telegraph | Cranky Fitness()

  • Stefan Stackhouse

    The problem for those of us here in the US is that our constitution was deliberately designed by people who distrusted government to be a relatively inefficient institution. If you started from scratch to design an efficient government, it would not at all look like what we have now. Without totally scrapping what we have now and starting over with a fresh design – AKA “a revolution” – we are left with tinkering around the edges and trying for relatively marginal improvements that will make little real difference and thus matter very little.

  • Pingback: My Homepage()

  • Pingback:

  • Pingback: Going Here()

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2015 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service